Is nuclear fusion the future of clean energy?

218,298
0
Published 2023-12-14
Fusion is a kind of nuclear power, which could revolutionise how clean energy is produced. As a new wave of experiments heats up, can fusion live up to the hype?

00:33 The future of green energy
02:00 What is nuclear fusion and how does it work?
03:17 Is it achievable?

Sign up to The Economist’s daily newsletter: econ.st/3s9WjPB

Energy security gives climate-friendly nuclear-power plants a new appeal: econ.st/3QHgdd1

Listen to our podcast about the importance of private companies in advancing nuclear fusion econ.st/49n7aqa

Fusion power is coming back into fashion: econ.st/49jPwDu

Watch our film about the transition to green energy: econ.st/473WDNT

The race to build a commercial fusion reactor hots up: econ.st/47kpfDn

Watch more of our Now & Next series: econ.st/46TXWjv

All Comments (21)
  • Fund and build more fission plants, research fusion. While fusion is the future, it's not going to come fast enough to stop extensive environmental damage. Focus on building what we have now that can easily solve the issue, and continue looking into better alternatives in the meantime.
  • @carlograncini
    Interesting, but grid energy from fusion is far away, if it will ever come. We can hope, since hope is free, but we should plan the energy transition without taking into account nuclear fusion.
  • @DanielGlover
    Nice video. They been there since the 80's in the big building working on this. See you did use some Culham village and science center drone stuff of mine. Very nice.
  • @JigilJigil
    There are 43 private fusion companies: 25 in US 6 in EU 3 in UK 3 in Japan 2 in China 1 in New Zealand 1 in Australia 1 in Canada 1 in Israel
  • @michelem.6104
    Ultimately it will come down to cost. Solar & wind farms might just get the last laugh--IF stationary storage batteries get bigger and cheaper. Think about it: 'Overbuilding' solar & off shore windfarms will allow any excess power to be dumped into storage--far far cheaper than keeping a labor intensive nuclear/fusion/coal or even LNG powerplant on line. Plus, any extra (when storage is "full") could be used to make cheap H2 (and O2) as a side benefit.
  • @AKG58Z
    We actually need a more robust system to fuse these fuels together but right now tokamak will suffice in the future when we do use fusion for energy use we will use something like more raw in nature like comprehensive fusion it can be built by new material science.
  • It's a waste of time when you can just invest that money into wind power, solar power, geothermal power, tidal power, wave power and storage, all of which work and don't require any scientific breakthroughs. The only problem with green energy is the political will to move away from the lobbying (corruption) that goes with fossil fuels. Look at the US the easiest place to turn to green energy is Hawaii, it's a series of volcanoes, so there is more than enough geothermal power, just like Greenland has done. But Hawaii also is in the middle of the ocean so it's got enough opportunities to run 100% on wind power. It's also very sunny, and you could have enough solar power for 100% of all the power. As for storage you have mountains where you can build pumped hydro storage, or you could use hydrogen storage, or lithium batteries or sodium batteries. Probably the best long term storage would be the hydrogen, and the short term storage would be a mixture of the pumped hydro and the batteries. The fact that Hawaii isn't running on 100% renewable power, has nothing to do with technology, there is more than enough technology that has been invented for Hawaii to be 100% renewable. It's a political problem. And if the US can't solve the easiest US State then the US will never bring down it's CO2 output for any US state.
  • @lewisreiman8124
    Quantum mechanics allows for a small portions of fast neutrons are created. These neutrons would make the fusion chamber radioac😮tive. What are the precautions are 4:26 be formulated to 6:13 mitigate this
  • @juliane__
    The Economist jumping on the hype train. There will be no commercial fusion reactor in 2030, 2040 nor 2050. Would be nice if we had some niche market for fusion power in twenty years though. But not probable. Really fusion fanboys running hot on fusion power comes next year/years. Twenty Years Later.... Fusion fanboys running hot on fusion power comes next year/years. Twenty Years Later... Comment section cringes me out. No viable prototype or demo plant in sight for at least a decade. Delays on top. No solution for energy conversion, no solution for providing continous flow of fuel without breaking down the plasma, and many more nos, which are there for 70 years now. Realistic, fusion power comes after 205. Comparable to the steam engine. 100+ years development before the first practical use. Another hundred years for widespread use in industrializing countries.
  • @tibsyy895
    One of the most exciting times to live in!
  • @stanleytolle416
    Before fusion can be even though of a reaction that produces more energy than what it takes needs to be proved. Once this is established it will take about thirty years to make anything that can produce useful power. In the mean time fission reactors to produce useful power can be improved and built now.
  • @alberthartl8885
    Some day this will be great. While we wait the best source for heat and electricity is 3rd generation geothermal. AGS from Canadian company Eavor is a fraction of the cost for any nuclear. Commercial project underway in Germany right now. Dozens more in the pipeline.
  • @WilliamJablonsky
    I don't know how feasible this is, but please save us. The powerful are only interested in what preserves them, not the world.